Posted on 11/13/2012 6:32:38 PM PST by Morgana
The White House website contains a section dedicated to letting the people’s voice be heard. Got an idea for a petition? Got enough signatures? The White House promises it will “be reviewed” and that they will “issue a response” to it. Should be interesting to see how the White House responds to the thirty plus states who have garnered enough signatures to secede from the United States.
“Can I ask you a quick question? Who thinks it’s a good idea to put your name on a petition secede from the United States of America and give it to President Obama?” Glenn said on radio this morning.
According to TheBlaze, over thirty states have petitions for secession submitted to White House with over one thousand signatures each. The Texas petition alone has over 40,000. According to WhiteHouse.gov, petitions with over 25,000 signatures are supposed to receive the attention of the President.
“So after the election, what did people start doing? In 27 states, people started to ask for a peaceful secession from the United States of America. Now how do you think that’s going to work out?” Glenn wondered. “You’re putting your name on a list that goes directly to the White House and you’re putting your name on a list and say ‘Yep, I believe we should secede. I believe there should be a civil war.’ That’s really smart.”
“It says peacefully in it, Glenn. Really, isn’t it just to make a statement,” Stu said.
“Yes, it is. Do you think these people don’t forget who made a statement to them? Are you out of your mind.”
(Excerpt) Read more at glennbeck.com ...
the constitution sets forth ... Bwaaahahahahahahaha! It means what I, a constitutional scholar, says it means. Now, off to Gitmo with you! I, The Mighty Caliph, Barack, order it...so let it be written; so let it be done!
“4. Signing such a petition with the feds shows you have no sense or opsec. If serious, you don’t create an online petition and sign it. You put people you don’t like on the list to have the government monitor THEM.”
Exxxcelent post!
But these individual petitions stand to collect untold signatures by starting an “I am Spartacus” mentality (see some of the supporters on Beck’s site listing their actual name and phone number). Huge numbers of signatures could trigger referendums in the petitioners’ states. Referendums in the petitioners’ states could tempt a few foreigners to dump US securities. Their dumping could prompt others to dump, and so on. No one wants to hold paper against debt backed by states loaded with people who go on public record as desiring to renege on it.
This little petition movement could kill the US dollar. Hyperinflation would follow, thus insuring mass secession.
On a likelihood scale of 1 to 10, it is about a 1.2. Not likely, to be sure, but reminiscent of the Star Wars scene where the underling says, “We’ve analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger.”
Especially dangerous would be for signatories to start signing these petitions for the express purpose of triggering a run on treasuries and killing the dollar.
This Texas Group is one of some successionist from over the years that have operated under various names. Here is some info on them. At one point they had their own elected officials [governor, etc] and may still have them, I don’t know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Texas_(group)
snip
The Republic of Texas is a general term for several organizations, some of which have been called militia groups,[1][2][3] that claim that the annexation of Texas by the United States was illegal and that Texas remains an independent nation under occupation. The issue of the legal status of Texas led the group to claim to reinstate a provisional government on December 13, 1995. Activists within the movement claim over 40,000 active supporters; however, there is no widespread popular support for an independent Texas.[4]
The movement for independence was started by the research of Richard Lance (Rick) McLaren. McLaren found that, in 1861, Texans voted four-to-one to leave the Union. According to McLaren’s work, Texas met the qualifications, under international law, of a captive nation of war, since the end of the American Civil War in 1865.
The movement split into three factions in 1996, one led by McLaren, one by David Johnson and Jesse Enloe, and the third by Archie Lowe and Daniel Miller. In 1997, McLaren and his followers kidnapped Joe and Margaret Ann Rowe, held them hostage at the Fort Davis Resort, and demanded the release of a movement member in exchange for the Rowes.[5] [6] McLaren’s wife, Evelyn, convinced him to surrender peacefully after a week-long standoff with police and Texas Rangers. McLaren and four other Republic of Texas members were sent to prison.[7] This effectively destroyed the McLaren faction, and the Johnson-Enloe faction was discredited after two of its members, Jack Abbot Grebe Jr. and Johnie Wise, were convicted in 1998 of threatening to assassinate several government officials, including President Bill Clinton.
In 2003, what remained of the movement consolidated into one dominant group recognizing an “interim” government (which replaced the “provisional” government), headed by Daniel Miller. This interim government claimed authority from the original proclamations of 1995 and set up a headquarters in the town of Overton. The movement split again over legal arguments, resulting in the current state of affairs. Most of the original personalities of the movement have disappeared from public view. The organization’s finances have come from donations and the sale of some items such as a Republic of Texas Passport. The Republic of Texas headquarters in Overton, Texas burned down on August 31, 2005; one person was moderately injured.[8]
In January 2004, a man in jail in Aspen, Colorado claimed that the state of Colorado had no jurisdiction to extradite him to California on a probation warrant, on the grounds that he was a citizen of the Republic of Texas. He claimed that the sliver of land which contains Aspen was a part of the original Republic of Texas and, as such, he was not a citizen of the United States. His claim was rejected by the courts.[9]
He was saying don’t sign the petition because the list of names just ends up on ‘Big sis’’ computer. But that’s what taking a stand is.. Do it anyway.
And this just in:
TSA Asking About Secession Petition (vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2959211/posts
Gopher it:
TSA Asking About Secession Petition (vanity)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2959211/posts
To kick them out that means you are willing to "fight"?
"WE" would have to fight Federal Troops, National Guard (possibly) and the Local Police.
THAT is what we will have to contend with.
(First) THEY (Police & Military) will carry out orders and arrest those of us in open revolt until such time as there are enough of US willing to fight and possibly die.
Then (and only then) will they will join us for they ALMOST ALL are in agreement with our cause but the local Police/Military won't risk their skins till WE are a large enough force that they will take that risk and do what they know will keep them (and us) FREE.
I believe people need to utilize the Obama website as best they can, it needs to be shown for the farce that it is.
This needs to be done before that site is used against us.
I suspect Axlerod will have his little trained army of social media students driving Obama’s agenda from the site.
Obama will declare that the people have demanded this and and of course the benevolent Obama must do as the people wish.
“This little petition movement could kill the US dollar. Hyperinflation would follow, thus insuring mass secession.”
Please give me a scenario where we do not wind up with hyperinflation.
With our official debt, (not the real one where it includes all of the SS funds etc that have been squandered) if every human being on Planet Earth wrote our feral Govt a check for about $2200, our bank account would be ZERO, for just a moment.
Then it would start back negative.
WE must fight?
Hell - WE can’t find “ONE” Senator or Congressman who will even bring up the specter of fraud.
They are spineless and we are left with nobody to represent us.
To kick them out that means you are willing to "fight"?
"WE" would have to fight Federal Troops, National Guard (possibly) and the Local Police.
THAT is what we will have to contend with.
(First) THEY (Police & Military) will carry out orders and arrest those of us in open revolt until such time as there are enough of US willing to fight and possibly die.
Then (and only then) will they will join us for they ALMOST ALL are in agreement with our cause but the local Police/Military won't risk their skins till WE are a large enough force that they will take that risk and do what they know will keep them (and us) FREE.
I think it was back in the 80’s when the Alaska Independent Party was pretty strong, that you used to hear talk about secession. Some guy from north of Fairbanks was leading it. I think he died.
But you don’t hear much about it any more. The new regime in Russia making a lot of noise about taking Alaska back might have something to do with it, wouldn’t you think? Might be a good incentive to stay hooked up with the union. Sometimes I wonder though, if we would be that much worse off under Russia, compared to the Obama Commie regime.
We can try to force them to.
We need to band together, get enough signatures, make enough phone calls, protest enough.
At least TRY.
As Sarah Palin said, ‘we need to stop finger pointing and get down to the real reason we lost; voter fraud and suppression of the military vote’.
““This little petition movement could kill the US dollar. Hyperinflation would follow, thus insuring mass secession.”
Please give me a scenario where we do not wind up with hyperinflation.”
—Well, yeh! But this scenario would use a petition movement leading to secession as the trigger for it. That would be a pretty cool use of US hyper-debt in the eyes of some Jeffersonian humans.
Signed on as “Gloria Allred”. Heh.
Quit twisting words out of context. In case you don’t know his context when he said those things, i’ll help you with some “clarifying” questions.
You would agree that there is no difference between conservatives and liberals related to liberty and statism?
You would agree that there is no difference between the party that voted almost unanimously for Obama Care and the party that voted unanimously AGAINST it related to liberty and staism?
Any questions? I didn’t think so.
Yep! But I bet Kenya produce an Obama birth certificate.
Yep! But I bet Kenya could produce an Obama birth certificate.
That really depends on the definitions that you're using; the founders were Liberals, in the classic sense of the word, and likewise Conservative can mean trying to preserve the current order of things.
"To preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc." is an adequate descriptor of the GOP's 'elite' and indeed of the majority of the GOP's political caste. When was the last time you heard prominent Republicans advocating wholesale dissolution (not rename/roll-up/restructuring) of federal agencies/departments?
I never have, not seriously. I will admit that Reagan wanted to be rid of the Dept. of Education, according to what I've read; however, that was well before my time and I have consistently seen a Republican-party that is complacent, complicit, or incompetent -- there are no other explanations for their lack of drive, even when they have majorities, to pursue stated goals.
You would agree that there is no difference between the party that voted almost unanimously for Obama Care and the party that voted unanimously AGAINST it related to liberty and staism?
I am not convinced that the Republican party is for liberty: they are after-all the ones that passed Patriot Act and were instrumental in the NDAA suspending Haebus Corpus. (Note that I am not arguing that the Democratic party is.)
I think that we may be witnessing a scam on the people by a generalized political caste.
Any questions? I didn’t think so.
Actually there are:
Have you read Liberal Fascism? In it the author observes that the international socialists (communists) and the national socialists (socialists/NAZI/etc) hate each other even though there is so little difference in their vision (the scope of national vs international).
The same thing could apply to the R and D parties, though it is most instructive to see how they both reacted to the TEA party -- remember NY-23? That was when the national-level Republican party endorsed the Democratic candidate over the TEA-party Republican candidate who had won the primaries.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.